6 ms·

Also, it's not enough to simply repair the damage. They need do proper failure analysis and engineer a solution so this damage won't happen next time, 6-8 week

by phire 3y ago

Also, it's not enough to simply repair the damage. They need do proper failure analysis and engineer a solution so this damage won't happen next time, 6-8 weeks seems way too short. Elon is suggesting just slapping down a shitload of steal, but I really doubt that will meet standards.

sschueller 3y ago
I don't understand why Elon insists on re-inventing the wheel when we know how to deal with rockets this size. The Saturn V was similar in size and power, the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is still standing, just build a copy.
- jorlow 3y ago
  Starship is all about finding ways to whittle down margins from the status quo
- cschmatzler 3y ago
  Super Heavy has more than double the thrust of Saturn V, how is that similar?
- zpeti 3y ago
  I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him? I love it when people take one small issue and point out how stupid he’s being, yet ignore how by challenging every point of engineering on rockets he’s almost at the point of making a mars transportation system possible.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    Rockets landing was never considered impossible, NASA even built and tested several such vehicles long ago. What was determined is that is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. The launch pad at Cape Canaveral may not be exactly what Starship needs but it would be a good start. Like flame trenches and placing the fuel storage tanks far enough away from the launch pad.
    - George83728 3y ago
      > What was determined is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. SpaceX hasn't "started to realize" that, they always knew that some F9 launches would be fully expendable and they've been occasionally expending F9 boosters from the start. Not because there's something wrong with the economics of booster reuse generally, but because expending a booster is sometimes (not usually) worth it to get more mass into orbit (roughly double to GTO with Falcon Heavy if they expend the core stage.) That extra performance was always known to be required for some payloads, but isn't required for most payloads.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    What was stopping any other launch system from sending fuel tanks to LEO and beyond? Probably not a whole lot technically. By now we could have had several fuel tanks in Mars orbit and a few on the ground, rather than all those orbiters and ground vehicles. Trade-offs.
    - George83728 3y ago
      What would be the point? Who'd pay for it? The real money is in launching satellites into orbit around earth and you don't need orbital propellant depots for that. Serious Mars colony customers don't exist. I know they're planning it for Starship HLS to the Moon, maybe it will finally be done then (I'm not holding my breath, Starship HLS's role in Artemis still seems farcical to me.) But until then, it's never really been an idea worth developing.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
        Doesn't look like my tone came across correctly. I agree with you.
- martindbp 3y ago
  They obviously took a calculated risk. If they never took any risks they wouldn't be where they are today. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, but you win some you lose some.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  In Boca Chica, underground water is too high AFAIK. Any trench system would risk being flooded.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  They had done static fires at half thrust, equaling the thrust Saturn V produces without issue. Why spend hundreds of millions or in the case of Saturn V billions on a governmentally overspecced launchpad when a launch mount and a concrete pad would do just fine?
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Manned space exploration is hard to "overspec." It is risky af under the best circumstances. This illustrates a conflict in Starship design goals: Big enough to colonize Mars but cheap enough to lunch Starlink satellites. Might not be reconcilable.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      Rather, it is incredibly easy to overspec. Everything is important and then you get SLS like costs. Compare to Falcon 9 which took a similar path to Starship and today works beautifully for human launches. Take the SLS crawler looking to cost $1 - $1.5B. What a waste of resources. https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in...
      - Zigurd 3y ago
        Apollo cost 2.5% of USA's entire GDP, every year, for ten years. Space exploration is insanely expensive. It is unclear if the requirements of space exploration can be met while making a rocket intended to be at least 5X cheaper per kilogram to orbit. Trying to meet wildly divergent, even contradictory goals, is a good way to build a doomed project. Now add schedule pressure to remain the sole vendor for a lunar lander and you get bad project management decisions.
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        Spacex have already succeeded with Falcon 9? Starship is the next magnitude in cost reduction following the same formula.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  He's got many reasons. Some of them are probably not good reasons. If the project fails, it's a good bet some of the reasons are in conflict. Also, some reasons drive bad decision making as the project proceeds. This is just a big, vivid example of how many projects die: 1. Not giving up project goals or specs when they start to look dubious 2. Sticking with cheap (in time, money, or both) solutions when more-reliable solutions might be called for 3. Letting sunk costs drive bad decisions about the above and other project related decisions In this case there are unpleasant downstream effects of making safer decisions: Starship might not be the Moon lander Artemis 3 should rely on. All changes made in Boca Chica will have to be retrofitted to Kennedy Space Center. Lastly, Musk has made pronouncements about Starlink's viability resting on Starship. That could be hyperbole, but Starlink needs 30-100X more subscribers to become a first tier telecom provider, and it can't support that many without the planned constellation of tens of thousands of full-size second-generation satellites.

by phire 3y ago

sschueller 3y ago

I don't understand why Elon insists on re-inventing the wheel when we know how to deal with rockets this size. The Saturn V was similar in size and power, the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is still standing, just build a copy.

jorlow 3y ago
Starship is all about finding ways to whittle down margins from the status quo
cschmatzler 3y ago
Super Heavy has more than double the thrust of Saturn V, how is that similar?
zpeti 3y ago
I mean challenging the “well known” engineering orthodoxies like rockets landing being almost impossible and not worth doing seem to have worked out ok for him? I love it when people take one small issue and point out how stupid he’s being, yet ignore how by challenging every point of engineering on rockets he’s almost at the point of making a mars transportation system possible.
- sschueller 3y ago
  Rockets landing was never considered impossible, NASA even built and tested several such vehicles long ago. What was determined is that is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. The launch pad at Cape Canaveral may not be exactly what Starship needs but it would be a good start. Like flame trenches and placing the fuel storage tanks far enough away from the launch pad.
  - George83728 3y ago
    > What was determined is is not economically viable which even SpaceX has started to realize on some launches where they ditch the landing in order to be able to carry more payload. SpaceX hasn't "started to realize" that, they always knew that some F9 launches would be fully expendable and they've been occasionally expending F9 boosters from the start. Not because there's something wrong with the economics of booster reuse generally, but because expending a booster is sometimes (not usually) worth it to get more mass into orbit (roughly double to GTO with Falcon Heavy if they expend the core stage.) That extra performance was always known to be required for some payloads, but isn't required for most payloads.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  What was stopping any other launch system from sending fuel tanks to LEO and beyond? Probably not a whole lot technically. By now we could have had several fuel tanks in Mars orbit and a few on the ground, rather than all those orbiters and ground vehicles. Trade-offs.
  - George83728 3y ago
    What would be the point? Who'd pay for it? The real money is in launching satellites into orbit around earth and you don't need orbital propellant depots for that. Serious Mars colony customers don't exist. I know they're planning it for Starship HLS to the Moon, maybe it will finally be done then (I'm not holding my breath, Starship HLS's role in Artemis still seems farcical to me.) But until then, it's never really been an idea worth developing.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
      Doesn't look like my tone came across correctly. I agree with you.
martindbp 3y ago
They obviously took a calculated risk. If they never took any risks they wouldn't be where they are today. It's easy to criticize in hindsight, but you win some you lose some.
inglor_cz 3y ago
In Boca Chica, underground water is too high AFAIK. Any trench system would risk being flooded.
Gwypaas 3y ago
They had done static fires at half thrust, equaling the thrust Saturn V produces without issue. Why spend hundreds of millions or in the case of Saturn V billions on a governmentally overspecced launchpad when a launch mount and a concrete pad would do just fine?
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Manned space exploration is hard to "overspec." It is risky af under the best circumstances. This illustrates a conflict in Starship design goals: Big enough to colonize Mars but cheap enough to lunch Starlink satellites. Might not be reconcilable.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    Rather, it is incredibly easy to overspec. Everything is important and then you get SLS like costs. Compare to Falcon 9 which took a similar path to Starship and today works beautifully for human launches. Take the SLS crawler looking to cost $1 - $1.5B. What a waste of resources. https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in...
    - Zigurd 3y ago
      Apollo cost 2.5% of USA's entire GDP, every year, for ten years. Space exploration is insanely expensive. It is unclear if the requirements of space exploration can be met while making a rocket intended to be at least 5X cheaper per kilogram to orbit. Trying to meet wildly divergent, even contradictory goals, is a good way to build a doomed project. Now add schedule pressure to remain the sole vendor for a lunar lander and you get bad project management decisions.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        Spacex have already succeeded with Falcon 9? Starship is the next magnitude in cost reduction following the same formula.
Zigurd 3y ago
He's got many reasons. Some of them are probably not good reasons. If the project fails, it's a good bet some of the reasons are in conflict. Also, some reasons drive bad decision making as the project proceeds. This is just a big, vivid example of how many projects die: 1. Not giving up project goals or specs when they start to look dubious 2. Sticking with cheap (in time, money, or both) solutions when more-reliable solutions might be called for 3. Letting sunk costs drive bad decisions about the above and other project related decisions In this case there are unpleasant downstream effects of making safer decisions: Starship might not be the Moon lander Artemis 3 should rely on. All changes made in Boca Chica will have to be retrofitted to Kennedy Space Center. Lastly, Musk has made pronouncements about Starlink's viability resting on Starship. That could be hyperbole, but Starlink needs 30-100X more subscribers to become a first tier telecom provider, and it can't support that many without the planned constellation of tens of thousands of full-size second-generation satellites.